However, a Schuylkill County jury found Brandon Piekarsky and Derrick Donchak guilty of simple assault stemming from the death of Luis Ramirez, who died of blunt force injuries to the head after a fight with the defendants and their friends.

Donchak, 19, was also found guilty of providing alcohol to the group of teens that encountered Ramirez the night of July 12 on a residential street in the rural mining town of Shenandoah.

Prosecutors alleged the teens baited the undocumented Mexican immigrant into a fight with racial epithets, provoking an exchange of punches and kicks that ended with Ramirez convulsing in the street, foaming from the mouth. ---- so in Pottsville Pennsylvania, you get charged for a simple assault when you kill a mexican.

if a bunch of mexicans went over there and beat these two to death, will they be charged with simple assault too?

Welcome, You landed on Bestandworst.com! Please Vote on the ballot on the left!

^pASSiveson, you don't know shit about american law. If you did you wouldn't be resorting to personal attacks like you are now. Seriously if you don't know what you're talking about, then just shut the fuck up.

I agree with britvic55. You can't possibly judge these two without hearing the testimony by both them, the defense and the prosecutor.

The media manipulates it out to be that these two are racist cold blooded killers, they do so for ratings. But from what I've heard the jury reached the proper remedy in this case in my opinion. There are two elements to a crime. Actus reus, the criminal act, and two, mens rea, the intent. These two set out for a fight and engaged in one the "actus reus" in this case, they used racial slurs to engage in it, and the illegal responded to them with violence, but there's no "mens rea" to kill the illegal by the two, no intent. The defence can argue, and successfully did so, that the actus reus and mens rea did not exist for the assault charge either. They may have intended to get in a fight and did engage in one, but they did not intend to kill the illegal, and the illegal willingly engaged in the brawl and hit first and holds the blame for his death and the assault charge, because by engaging in violence first the other two are innocent by self defense and defense of a third person.

Voted : Behold, the Justice System!No tortured reasoning here, It was a premeditated hate crime, proven by the means of bait. I said it before and I'll say it again, racists are always in a state of denial.

There were a lot of differences there. OJ had millions of dollars at his disposal, he was able to hire high powered lawyers who turn OJ's case into a cause. The accused in OJ's case used a knife, not fists. And we assume OJ killed his wife.

We know that these two killed the illegal, we know they provoked him. They did not have millions to hire high powered lawyers to turn their case into a cause. The jury came to the conclusion that in the process of defending themselves, in a physical altercation they provoked with racial slurs, they unintentionally killed the illegal. It doesn't mean they're 100% innocent like OJ claims he is. But they are innocent of intentionally killing the illegal and assaulting him. The illegal could have walked away at any point in time, he chose to pursue it.

Mr_Speen, In my State, if a suspect provokes an assualt that results in a death, then the suspect bares responsibity for all circumstances to follow. I'm quite sure this is true Nation wide. So the excuse "we didn't mean to" doesn't hold creditability.

I dont know enough about the case or the law to make an informed decision, but based on what you said in the ballot I'm of the opinion that provoking a person to a fight that results in their death especially since the person was out numbered is an offence that should be charged as murder.

So you can goad someone racially, outnumber them, kill them, and then not be found guilty of a hate crime... that's the justice system for you, and then have people agree you were in the "right", okay, I got it. What was the motive again ? The person that's no longer here may not have even started the physical part of it since we only get "one side" of the story... that's like a redneck being judged by a bunch of rednecks, which is why I'm not surprised by the verdict at all.

^VanHelsing, That's not how a murder works. To successfully convict a perpetrator or co-perpetrators with murder, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

A. Actus Reus, the act itself. The victim died as a direct result of the perpetrators actions.

B. Mens Rea, the intent. The person knowing carried out the Actus Reus with no regard for the consequences.

The DA was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the mens rea, which in this case was that the two teens allegedly baited an illegal into a fight in which they plotted to murder the victim. The way the jury sees it, the two provoked the illegal and the illegal proceeded to assault the two. The two then fought back. One of them was self defending himself and the other hitting back was defending the victim of the illegals assault.

So you can goad someone racially, outnumber them, kill them, and then not be found guilty of a hate crime... that's the justice system for you, and then have people agree you were in the "right", okay, I got it. What was the motive again ? The person that's no longer here may not have even started the physical part of it since we only get "one side" of the story... that's like a redneck being judged by a bunch of rednecks, which is why I'm not surprised by the verdict at all. by thesoothsayer on Sat May 02, 09 7:17pm

^The illegal could have walked away at any time. He didn't, he willingly engaged in a physical altercation and the one who he hit first has a legal right to self defend himself and the other the legal right to defend the victim of the illegal's assault. The illegal could have filed a harassment charge, he didn't, and the shite hit the fan. That's why the police don't advise taking these matters into your own hands.

^Okay, when LCD and thesoothsayer make a mistake they didn't intend to, let's just sentence them to life in prison without the possibility of parole, they shouldn't be allowed to a defense. We should just automatically assume guilty guilty guilty because they killed someone, who cares whether they intended to or not. Why stop there? Lets give all doctors who've ever had a patient die on the table life sentences without parole. Lets give firemen life sentences for not rescuing people in time. Lets give policemen sentences who have no other choice but to kill in to fulfill their duty to serve and protect. Behold the ignorant court of public opinion, no justice for all!

here's a concept. one punishment for one crime. When someone kills someone, let's convict them of murder, and not some assault. by LCD on Sat May 02, 09 8:58pm

^Well the concept in law is to convict someone of murder, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

A. Actus Reus, the act itself. The victim died as a direct result of the perpetrators actions.

B. Mens Rea, the intent. The person knowing carried out the Actus Reus with no regard for the consequences.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another person with malice aforethought (intent to do so). In first degree murder the malice aforethought is always premeditated. In 2nd degree murder the malice aforethought is not premeditated, it's rather on the spot, spontaneous, of how to deal with a situation. Manslaughter does not require the perpetrator to intend to kill the victim, but does require a premeditated or non-premeditated malice aforethought to inflict grievous bodily harm with no regard to the consequences.

^The only intent by the two I see was to insult an illegal, and then to defend themselves when the illegal lashed out. Whether that is assault or aggravated assault by the teens is up for debate, but an impartial jury of 12 of their peers say no. If the defense attorney thought any of the 12 jurors was biased in anyway he could have had them kicked off. IMO any assault by the two teens is justified by the two teens because they had and have a legal right to self defend themselves and defend another person under attack by an ILLEGAL alien, a criminal. How where they to know this criminal with no regard for the law wouldn't try to kill them?

As Spleen said 'Murder is the unlawful killing of another person with malice aforethought (intent to do so)'

They didn't intend to kill him (As decided by a jury of their peers) so it wasn't murder, in legal terms. Argue that IYO it's not right, moral. or whatever, it doesn't alter the fact you are wrong. It's as simple as that.

No-ones saying they agree with what these turds did, but you can't argue with the definition of murder, which you lot appear to be doing and regardless of what certain know-it-alls bleat blindly, and wrongly, about the laws in their state "we didn't mean to" DOES hold creditability in a lot of cases.

Mr_Spleen, I reitterate, In my State, if a suspect provokes an assualt that results in a death, then the suspect bares responsibity for all circumstances to follow.

It doesn't matter if they meant to kill him and self defense doesn.t apply. ' You a lawyer in the US or, specifically the State of Washington? I thought not. Why don't you and your UK assassin keep your biASSed opinions to YERSEFF?

Talk all tje crap you want poindexter, it doesn't change the facts. You and Britvic wouild probably make a fine couple (of morons) like mind think alike, so they say. I know American law better than mo st lawyers, so until you post some legal precedence, STFU.

Talk all the crap you want poindexter, it doesn't change the facts. You and Britvic wouild probably make a fine couple (of morons), like minds think alike, so they say. I know American law better than most lawyers, so until you post some legal precedence to validate your dumb fucking ass', STFU.

^pASSiveson, you don't know shit about american law. If you did you wouldn't be resorting to personal attacks like you are now. Seriously if you don't know what you're talking about, then just shut the fuck up.